financial plans

Dear Liz: My spouse and I are retired. We have substantial investment assets, significant cash reserves and considerable equity in our home. Over nearly 40 years together, we’ve worked with several financial advisors, but every decade or so, we’ve become dissatisfied and moved on. Now, at this stage of life, we want a clearer roadmap for the next five to 10 years and beyond.

We’ve read your columns for years and have taken your advice about fiduciary financial advisors seriously. We’re currently looking for a new independent advisor, but we’re finding that many only offer financial planning if we also hire them under an assets-under-management (AUM) arrangement. Others will provide a standalone financial plan for a flat fee prior to having a client come on board for asset management.

We feel strongly that before committing to a long-term advisor relationship, we should first get an independent, comprehensive financial plan — essentially a snapshot of where we are now and how best to move forward. Does that approach make sense? Should we prioritize paying for a standalone financial plan before deciding whether to hire someone for ongoing investment management?

Answer: As you’ve discovered, many fiduciary fee-only advisors bundle financial planning advice with investment management because AUM fees are more lucrative than charging for plans. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best approach for every client.

Paying for a financial plan means shelling out more money up front, but you’ll get the opportunity to check out the advisor’s approach, communication style and attention to detail before entrusting them with your investments. The plan should include all the usual areas such as insurance, taxes, asset allocation and estate planning, with a special emphasis on the topics that are important at your stage of life, such as sustainable withdrawal rates, paying for long-term care and protecting your assets from fraud and cognitive decline.